Hi Everybody! :)
On this I found very interesting was how Jerusalem wasn't initially particularly important to Christians. In fact they called it the "Guilty City" for rejected and killing Jesus. It started to become important largely because of the ambitions of the Bishop of Aelia/Jerusalem (Cyril) - in addition to archaeological finds. This was quite a reversal for Christians who saw themselves as 'purely spiritual' and above the need of a physical site to feel close to God. On page 183, Armstrong says that this showed that the "myths of sacred geography are deeply rooted in the human psyche." This really adds to the discussion we were having last week about how our holy places still manage to have a profound effect on us.
Another quote that really jumped out at me was this: "Christianity may have been liberated from oppression but it was still embattled and defensive, poised in an attitude of resolute and destructive opposition to its rivals. " Woah. Does this remind you of anything? The modern state of Israel, perhaps. Of a people, long abused, finally achieving some power and thus being extremely defensive? Yeah. Personally I think that that is quite the parallel.
Throughout the book, we are seeing more and more Christian disdain for their parent religion, Judaism. For some reason, they seemed to think that Judaism needed to be destroyed in order for Christianity to be legitimized (or something like that). I found this very disturbing, but not surprising. Every time I come across a section about this antisemitism, I feel a little dread, because of the horror that it eventually brought.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Monday, January 28, 2013
Journal #2 The Problem with "No Solution"
Hello Everybody. :)
I gotta say, despite the fact that this is a class about Jerusalem, I was a little surprised about the prompt for this journal. I feel like I don't know nearly enough about the situation to put forth a good idea. But perhaps not knowing enough might not be so bad because it might help me think outside the box.
I think the best place to start would be at the micro-level, with individuals and communities. While sitting together over a plate of hummus and falafel might not be super productive, I think that it can't hurt. Small grass-roots organizations can be the catalyst for great change. Earlier in the class I brought up the idea of fostering peace in Israeli and Palestinian schools. There is so much hate outside in the world. School could be a place that promotes understanding. I understand that this would be easier said than done, but children are highly impressionable, so at the very least it might help curtail the belief that violence is the only answer and prevent future loss of life. Perhaps this education could be done by international or domestic volunteers who are part of peace organizations. While this may seem insignificant, it could be the seed for something in the future.
On to the level of policy: the first step would be granting Palestinians their rights and equal representation. As for how to go about doing this . . . I have no idea. While I don't know much about Israeli politics, I doubt that a lot of the politicians are amenable to that, for reasons of power, national security, staying in office etc. etc. If most of them were open to it, I'd like to think that progress would be made in this area by now. Without Palestinians having a say, I don't think there will be a solution.
I don't think anyone has any delusions that this is going to be easy. But I favor the slow and hopefully steady approach of changing the little things. I understand that this won't really help people's living conditions right now, and that sucks. But realistically, this is the route I would take
I gotta say, despite the fact that this is a class about Jerusalem, I was a little surprised about the prompt for this journal. I feel like I don't know nearly enough about the situation to put forth a good idea. But perhaps not knowing enough might not be so bad because it might help me think outside the box.
I think the best place to start would be at the micro-level, with individuals and communities. While sitting together over a plate of hummus and falafel might not be super productive, I think that it can't hurt. Small grass-roots organizations can be the catalyst for great change. Earlier in the class I brought up the idea of fostering peace in Israeli and Palestinian schools. There is so much hate outside in the world. School could be a place that promotes understanding. I understand that this would be easier said than done, but children are highly impressionable, so at the very least it might help curtail the belief that violence is the only answer and prevent future loss of life. Perhaps this education could be done by international or domestic volunteers who are part of peace organizations. While this may seem insignificant, it could be the seed for something in the future.
On to the level of policy: the first step would be granting Palestinians their rights and equal representation. As for how to go about doing this . . . I have no idea. While I don't know much about Israeli politics, I doubt that a lot of the politicians are amenable to that, for reasons of power, national security, staying in office etc. etc. If most of them were open to it, I'd like to think that progress would be made in this area by now. Without Palestinians having a say, I don't think there will be a solution.
I don't think anyone has any delusions that this is going to be easy. But I favor the slow and hopefully steady approach of changing the little things. I understand that this won't really help people's living conditions right now, and that sucks. But realistically, this is the route I would take
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
RR #4 - Chapters 5-8
Hello Everyone. :)
I'm going to be perfectly honest. I had a really hard time getting through Chapter 6: "Antioch in Judea." It just seemed to be a never ending sequence of this person conquered these people, and they were banished so they took it back, and then some other person came in and conquered them, but he let them keep their beliefs, so they were OK with it, but then that empire fell and a whole 'nother kerfluffle started.
Once it transitioned into the Common Era, I was able to focus a bit more, because I had more historical context. But still, the constant occupation and war and rebellion continued. My gosh, it must have been exhausting (yes, I'm being facetious). A lot of the things that happened really annoyed me and tweaked my sense of justice. Such as the various banishment(s) of people from Jerusalem. When the Jews ruled, no Gentiles were allowed to live in the city, and several times, the Jews were banished as well. The Gentiles being banned was a matter of religion, whereas the Jews being banished was a matter of security and fearing more rebellions. While both these things seem very primitive, I guess that it's a very human type of reaction- keeping people that are 'other' out. I do wonder on the logistics of this though. How did they know that someone was a gentile or a Jew? Was it how they dressed? Did they have documentation? I'd like to know how this was accomplished.
Another point of interest for me, was how some of the main traditions of Judaism changed after the destruction of Herod's temple. I figured that they stopped doing sacrifices slowly as time went on and the cultures changed, as opposed to a school of Rabbis deciding that charity and mercy was enough of an offering. This seems like a much more modern concept, and a quick change from the primitiveness of human sacrifice.
I'm going to be perfectly honest. I had a really hard time getting through Chapter 6: "Antioch in Judea." It just seemed to be a never ending sequence of this person conquered these people, and they were banished so they took it back, and then some other person came in and conquered them, but he let them keep their beliefs, so they were OK with it, but then that empire fell and a whole 'nother kerfluffle started.
Once it transitioned into the Common Era, I was able to focus a bit more, because I had more historical context. But still, the constant occupation and war and rebellion continued. My gosh, it must have been exhausting (yes, I'm being facetious). A lot of the things that happened really annoyed me and tweaked my sense of justice. Such as the various banishment(s) of people from Jerusalem. When the Jews ruled, no Gentiles were allowed to live in the city, and several times, the Jews were banished as well. The Gentiles being banned was a matter of religion, whereas the Jews being banished was a matter of security and fearing more rebellions. While both these things seem very primitive, I guess that it's a very human type of reaction- keeping people that are 'other' out. I do wonder on the logistics of this though. How did they know that someone was a gentile or a Jew? Was it how they dressed? Did they have documentation? I'd like to know how this was accomplished.
Another point of interest for me, was how some of the main traditions of Judaism changed after the destruction of Herod's temple. I figured that they stopped doing sacrifices slowly as time went on and the cultures changed, as opposed to a school of Rabbis deciding that charity and mercy was enough of an offering. This seems like a much more modern concept, and a quick change from the primitiveness of human sacrifice.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Reading Response #3
Hello Everyone!
I adore history, especially history that I have some sort of connection to. No, my ancestors don't come from the Middle East (at least I'm pretty darn sure they don't - at least not for a long time) but I've been going to church and hearing stories from the Bible for as long as I can remembers. Stories of Abraham and David and Solomon. I had little picture books with beautiful drawings of the Ark of the Covenant and the City of David- the whole nine yards. Reading Karen Armstrong's more historically-supported account is really really cool.
I don't consider myself particularly religious anymore, but learning about the true (at least supposedly) stories of these places and people is really exciting. I dunno if it's the nerd in me or what, but I blazed through the first 3 chapters (maybe not the fourth one as much - I found that a little harder to get through). I watched every history channel documentary there was on Biblical people and events. (Not that they air those anymore. Thanks a lot Pawn Stars) So yes, I know that a lot of people might find it boring and they probably would like to get to more modern history soon, but I liked it.
I like Karen Armstrong's writing style. It's doesn't have a lot of description (though there's not a lot of details for this time frame, of course so that may change) and is straight and informative without being dreadfully boring. I also find it interesting that she was a nun the first time she came to Jerusalem. Even growing up as a Christian, I still think of Jerusalem as a Jewish v. Muslim issue. And I found it's a bit surprising that the person who wrote the book for the class is (or was at one point) a Catholic. Perhaps it will eliminate some of the typical bias one associates with writings on Jerusalem. I also looked at her Wikipedia page and saw that she is called one of the foremost religious historians and she also won the TED Prize in 2008. I think that we can probably trust her writing (to an extent of course).
Lastly, I like the maps she provides. It's cool to see how the village, then, town, then citadel, then capital, then city of Jerusalem morphs and shifts throughout time.
As sign off, I'm going to continue to be pretty informal with my writing. I enjoy blogging a lot more this way. I hope no one minds!
I adore history, especially history that I have some sort of connection to. No, my ancestors don't come from the Middle East (at least I'm pretty darn sure they don't - at least not for a long time) but I've been going to church and hearing stories from the Bible for as long as I can remembers. Stories of Abraham and David and Solomon. I had little picture books with beautiful drawings of the Ark of the Covenant and the City of David- the whole nine yards. Reading Karen Armstrong's more historically-supported account is really really cool.
I don't consider myself particularly religious anymore, but learning about the true (at least supposedly) stories of these places and people is really exciting. I dunno if it's the nerd in me or what, but I blazed through the first 3 chapters (maybe not the fourth one as much - I found that a little harder to get through). I watched every history channel documentary there was on Biblical people and events. (Not that they air those anymore. Thanks a lot Pawn Stars) So yes, I know that a lot of people might find it boring and they probably would like to get to more modern history soon, but I liked it.
I like Karen Armstrong's writing style. It's doesn't have a lot of description (though there's not a lot of details for this time frame, of course so that may change) and is straight and informative without being dreadfully boring. I also find it interesting that she was a nun the first time she came to Jerusalem. Even growing up as a Christian, I still think of Jerusalem as a Jewish v. Muslim issue. And I found it's a bit surprising that the person who wrote the book for the class is (or was at one point) a Catholic. Perhaps it will eliminate some of the typical bias one associates with writings on Jerusalem. I also looked at her Wikipedia page and saw that she is called one of the foremost religious historians and she also won the TED Prize in 2008. I think that we can probably trust her writing (to an extent of course).
Lastly, I like the maps she provides. It's cool to see how the village, then, town, then citadel, then capital, then city of Jerusalem morphs and shifts throughout time.
As sign off, I'm going to continue to be pretty informal with my writing. I enjoy blogging a lot more this way. I hope no one minds!
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Journal #1 - Thoughts on the First Week
The Blogging initially made me a little nervous, because I'm not very into social media. I haven't updated my facebook status since June. June. So yes, I was a little hesitant.
While I had my reservations at first, I think that communicating through Blogging might be a good way to break the ice. It also may help us discuss opposing viewpoints. This is a subject with deep meaning for some people, and nerves are bound to be hit and passions are bound to come up. Being online, it is easier to state your true opinions, plus we have the benefit of enforced (kind of) politeness because we're not anonymous. We see each other in class twice a week whether we want to or not, so I'm not particularly worried about things staying civil. And also, not having the conversation in person gives us time to formulate our side of the discussion in a thoughtful articulate manner (I personally am able to get my point across much more clearly in writing). People can propose things on the main blog if they want to discuss something the next class, and people can get their thoughts together or research more information. Hopefully it will stimulate conversation without allowing things to get out of hand.
I would also like to take a moment to state how I feel about Jerusalem. I honestly don't have any connection to Jerusalem. I was raised Catholic, but other than Jerusalem being a place that would be cool to visit. I really don't have any deep personal feelings for it. It's home for some people. Both spiritually and (as far as their families go) physically. So at some points, I think I'm going to feel like an intruder on conversations. I also don't have a whole lot of knowledge on the topic. I could more than hold my own against the average American, sure, but beyond that I feel pretty ignorant compared to many in the class.
I think that this class will be extremely enlightening and I hope that everyone will be able to see other perspectives, even if it doesn't change their opinion.
While I had my reservations at first, I think that communicating through Blogging might be a good way to break the ice. It also may help us discuss opposing viewpoints. This is a subject with deep meaning for some people, and nerves are bound to be hit and passions are bound to come up. Being online, it is easier to state your true opinions, plus we have the benefit of enforced (kind of) politeness because we're not anonymous. We see each other in class twice a week whether we want to or not, so I'm not particularly worried about things staying civil. And also, not having the conversation in person gives us time to formulate our side of the discussion in a thoughtful articulate manner (I personally am able to get my point across much more clearly in writing). People can propose things on the main blog if they want to discuss something the next class, and people can get their thoughts together or research more information. Hopefully it will stimulate conversation without allowing things to get out of hand.
I would also like to take a moment to state how I feel about Jerusalem. I honestly don't have any connection to Jerusalem. I was raised Catholic, but other than Jerusalem being a place that would be cool to visit. I really don't have any deep personal feelings for it. It's home for some people. Both spiritually and (as far as their families go) physically. So at some points, I think I'm going to feel like an intruder on conversations. I also don't have a whole lot of knowledge on the topic. I could more than hold my own against the average American, sure, but beyond that I feel pretty ignorant compared to many in the class.
I think that this class will be extremely enlightening and I hope that everyone will be able to see other perspectives, even if it doesn't change their opinion.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Reading Response 2
History has always been one of my favorite subjects, so I really enjoyed this week's articles. We spend so much time focusing on the (relatively) recent history of Jerusalem that it was a nice breather to get to see a bit into the ancient past. Jerusalem means so much to so many people, and so many passions are tied up into it, it's strange to think that, at one point Jerusalem was just a small village reliant upon springs for water in the middle of the dusty landscape. I find it kind of funny that, in all actuality, Jerusalem wasn't a very convenient location for the tug-of-war between the three great monotheistic faiths. Poor Jerusalem has known more sieges, invasions, take-overs, build-ups and tear-downs than pretty much any city in the world. Who among the Jebusites, or other first inhabitants could have foreseen the fate of their little village. Just think of how different things would be if King David hadn't chosen it as his capital, or if the founder of Christianity hadn't died there, or if Muhammad would not have traveled there on his Night Journey? All three of the articles spend pages going over the various groups conquering the city, and then being conquered themselves. It made me really really want to watch Kingdom of Heaven (the director's cut of course).
My favorite of the three was the article by Mick Dumper. I thought he did a good job of establishing that Jerusalem wasn't a cake walk for the Palestinians or the Jews. The visual timeline was also a nice edition (and, maybe it's the Kindergartner in me, but I liked the pictures too). I liked how the Rubin article was mainly historical, though I thought how he ended it was a little sunshine and rainbows-y what with "Jerusalem {becoming} a united city where Jews and Muslims {. . . } could like side by side. Hmmm. I don't know if he's portraying that in a very realistic light. The Khalidi begins by saying that even if all of the religious texts aren't historically accurate, enough people believe that they are historically accurate for the traditions formed from them to be very very relevant today. He also ends on a hopeful note, but I think his is much more realistic than Rubin's. He hopes that in the end, peace will be reached and all the faiths can live in Jerusalem in (relative) harmony.
My favorite of the three was the article by Mick Dumper. I thought he did a good job of establishing that Jerusalem wasn't a cake walk for the Palestinians or the Jews. The visual timeline was also a nice edition (and, maybe it's the Kindergartner in me, but I liked the pictures too). I liked how the Rubin article was mainly historical, though I thought how he ended it was a little sunshine and rainbows-y what with "Jerusalem {becoming} a united city where Jews and Muslims {. . . } could like side by side. Hmmm. I don't know if he's portraying that in a very realistic light. The Khalidi begins by saying that even if all of the religious texts aren't historically accurate, enough people believe that they are historically accurate for the traditions formed from them to be very very relevant today. He also ends on a hopeful note, but I think his is much more realistic than Rubin's. He hopes that in the end, peace will be reached and all the faiths can live in Jerusalem in (relative) harmony.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Hello all. :)
I guess a little introduction about myself is a good idea. My name is Brianna Baar and I was born and raised in Southwest North Dakota. Yes, North Dakota. I have three much older siblings and I lived on the farm that has been in my dad's family for generations. My community is very rural and very very German with some Norwegian sprinkled in for flavor. Needless to say, where I come from isn't very diverse. Everyone looks and talks pretty much the same (the accent is atrocious, so if I slip up and pronounce my 'ag's weird, you know why). The town where I went to school and worked was 90% Catholic and 10% Protestant Christian, which is about as diverse as it got). So I decided to go to Ohio State to get away from it all (don't get me wrong, I love my home) and get some experiences. I am currently in my Second Year here as a Middle Eastern Studies Major and an Arabic Minor. I am trying to graduate a year early so that I can began working on my Master's in Social Work. Ultimately I hope to do the bulk of my work helping immigrants and refugees in the United States.
Onward to the actual assignment!
Reading Responce:
As for the second Article, the interview of Amiry, the first thing that caught my interest was the responce to the question about the Postponement. She answered that it was a matter of not having enough money. Dr. Horowitz on the other hand, said that the real answer was a lot of highly political things that culminated in the project getting shut down.
I also thought it was an interesting thing that pheasant culture is idealized and Urban culture ignored. Is this due to some longing for simpler days or for a way of life lost too many? Is it idealizing the past in favor of the present? Another thing she said was "for many abroad, Jerusalem is simply the center of three religions, not a place where people engage in every day life." I honestly have never thought of it as a place where people actually live. A place where they get in trouble, and rescue cats and do the laundry and shop for groceries and do their homework and go to their jobs at the grocery store. As stupid and irreverent as it sounds I kind of unknowingly thought of Jerusalem as the ultimate tourist town, a place to visit, not a place to live. This was born out of ignorance on my part of course.
I found the Hasan-Rokem article a little too verbose and complex.Sentences like "Representation operates by metonymy, synecdoche and metaphor," had me staring. I consider myself to have a pretty big vocabulary but what? It had a lot of valuable information in it, but it was hard to keep from spacing out and from getting confused by all the terminology. For instance, the pages about the sukka really got me confused, and I wondered about their relevence. She later states that she did this for the purpose of demonstrating the difficulty of expressing this complex piece of ethnography into a visual and live festival, but I still found it a little excessive.
The poem that Dr. Horowitz quoted had just the effect on me that I think she intended: it kind of startled me, becuase I would totally be the tourist that ignored the living, breathing human to look at some really old rock. And isn't that a little messed up? The rest of the article was summarizing the headache-inducing task of figuring out the logistics of 'capturing Jerusalem' on the Washington Lawn. I really enjoyed Dr. Horowitz's writing style, as it is informative, simple and funny.
All of the articles had one particular theme in common: he difficulty in finding compromise for all of the participating parties; The Smithosonian and the Municipal governments, the elitists and the folklorists, and of course, the Palestinians and the Israelis, they all had to be worked around a bit, and it was basically impossible to keep everybody happy. Everything from the physical set up, to the number of Jerusalemites brought from each 'side,' to whom to recieve funidng for, to the actual name of the exhibit was under contention. And if that's not a symbol, or a metaphor or what have you, for the greater conflict, I don't know what is.
I guess a little introduction about myself is a good idea. My name is Brianna Baar and I was born and raised in Southwest North Dakota. Yes, North Dakota. I have three much older siblings and I lived on the farm that has been in my dad's family for generations. My community is very rural and very very German with some Norwegian sprinkled in for flavor. Needless to say, where I come from isn't very diverse. Everyone looks and talks pretty much the same (the accent is atrocious, so if I slip up and pronounce my 'ag's weird, you know why). The town where I went to school and worked was 90% Catholic and 10% Protestant Christian, which is about as diverse as it got). So I decided to go to Ohio State to get away from it all (don't get me wrong, I love my home) and get some experiences. I am currently in my Second Year here as a Middle Eastern Studies Major and an Arabic Minor. I am trying to graduate a year early so that I can began working on my Master's in Social Work. Ultimately I hope to do the bulk of my work helping immigrants and refugees in the United States.
Onward to the actual assignment!
Reading Responce:
As for the second Article, the interview of Amiry, the first thing that caught my interest was the responce to the question about the Postponement. She answered that it was a matter of not having enough money. Dr. Horowitz on the other hand, said that the real answer was a lot of highly political things that culminated in the project getting shut down.
I also thought it was an interesting thing that pheasant culture is idealized and Urban culture ignored. Is this due to some longing for simpler days or for a way of life lost too many? Is it idealizing the past in favor of the present? Another thing she said was "for many abroad, Jerusalem is simply the center of three religions, not a place where people engage in every day life." I honestly have never thought of it as a place where people actually live. A place where they get in trouble, and rescue cats and do the laundry and shop for groceries and do their homework and go to their jobs at the grocery store. As stupid and irreverent as it sounds I kind of unknowingly thought of Jerusalem as the ultimate tourist town, a place to visit, not a place to live. This was born out of ignorance on my part of course.
I found the Hasan-Rokem article a little too verbose and complex.Sentences like "Representation operates by metonymy, synecdoche and metaphor," had me staring. I consider myself to have a pretty big vocabulary but what? It had a lot of valuable information in it, but it was hard to keep from spacing out and from getting confused by all the terminology. For instance, the pages about the sukka really got me confused, and I wondered about their relevence. She later states that she did this for the purpose of demonstrating the difficulty of expressing this complex piece of ethnography into a visual and live festival, but I still found it a little excessive.
The poem that Dr. Horowitz quoted had just the effect on me that I think she intended: it kind of startled me, becuase I would totally be the tourist that ignored the living, breathing human to look at some really old rock. And isn't that a little messed up? The rest of the article was summarizing the headache-inducing task of figuring out the logistics of 'capturing Jerusalem' on the Washington Lawn. I really enjoyed Dr. Horowitz's writing style, as it is informative, simple and funny.
All of the articles had one particular theme in common: he difficulty in finding compromise for all of the participating parties; The Smithosonian and the Municipal governments, the elitists and the folklorists, and of course, the Palestinians and the Israelis, they all had to be worked around a bit, and it was basically impossible to keep everybody happy. Everything from the physical set up, to the number of Jerusalemites brought from each 'side,' to whom to recieve funidng for, to the actual name of the exhibit was under contention. And if that's not a symbol, or a metaphor or what have you, for the greater conflict, I don't know what is.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)